[QUOTE=Brian-E;406105]You probably know more about each contributor to GIMPS than anyone else on the planet, but ultimately no-one except the people themselves knows what motivates them and where they are "at". And, of course, they are indeed people, regardless of whether or not they identify themselves.:smile:

Yes, you have the moral high ground for not reporting your result before the original assignee finished. There is plenty of work for everyone, and with the expiry and reassignment policies in place there is really no excuse for anyone to poach other people's assignments.:tu:[/QUOTE]

LOL... thanks. But I was kind of kidding because I've poached active assignments myself in the past, so I really can't claim to be all holier than thou. :smile: When I've done it before, I tried to be judicious and pick ones that seemed abandoned, but I've been wrong before.

That's why I setup a little thing to keep track of *actual* progress of these grandfathered things and try to guesstimate if it would expire before being done or not. There were just these last 3 (2 in the 55M and one in the 58M range) that were iffy and I thought would probably make it, so I was happy to let it play out.

Anyway, I wasn't really going to name and shame anyone since that's a little too "pot calling the kettle black" for me, I just wanted to make sure I encouraged the person to hold off on doing that other one if they had similar intentions.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;406124]Anyway, I wasn't really going to name and shame anyone since that's a little too "pot calling the kettle black" for me, I just wanted to make sure I encouraged the person to hold off on doing that other one if they had similar intentions.[/QUOTE]
Right! You're way ahead of everyone.:smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;406089]EDIT: I know for a fact this person is reading this thread, so... just hold off on doing that 2nd one. I've done my own pre-doublecheck and the original assignee will finish theirs ~ Sep 4[/QUOTE]I think the best way to discourage the rogue "perpetrator" from doing another wasted test is to report your result. Then there is no incentive to [dup|trip]licate the work.

[QUOTE=retina;406162]I think the best way to discourage the rogue "perpetrator" from doing another wasted test is to report your result. Then there is no incentive to [dup|trip]licate the work.[/QUOTE]

I can send you my result and let you have the honors. :smile: That way if anyone gets wee-wee'd up about it they can take it out on mean Mr. Retina. :devil:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;406180]I can send you my result and let you have the honors. :smile: That way if anyone gets wee-wee'd up about it they can take it out on mean Mr. Retina. :devil:[/QUOTE]Okay, no prob.. I can take the heat. Post your residue here. As long as you tell everyone else not to use it or read it then I can't see any difficulties. :unsure:

Seems like that user has stalled on their work. Nothing reported in for 2 weeks now on that last <57M assignment, and same on their (now) double check that got poached. Nothing heard since July 26.

At this rate, the first time check will expire in 8 more days based on the current % done. The double-check would expire in 11 days, although it wouldn't really expire then since double checks in the 55M range are a long ways out, so it would get some grace on that.

I'm thinking it might be time to call this and check in my result now. If the original user does check in again, I didn't have great confidence it was going to finish in time anyway... if it did it was going to be a squeaker for sure. Sep 7 was my last best estimate which put it very close to the max 665 days for the assignment age (about a day past). I'd be tempted to wait until the day before it expires just to give them every possible chance but I'll actually be away from my computer then.

So... here goes. I'm going to check in my double-check for that other one while I'm at it.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;407535]Seems like that user has stalled on their work. [/QUOTE]

Yup... that user still hadn't checked in any progress on [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M55079077"]M55079077[/URL]

It would have expired on Aug. 16th (unless they actually do check in again and update the % done, but it probably still wouldn't have completed in time).

It would be awesome if the linked page showed the percentage completed and last check in of assigned work.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;407988]It would be awesome if the linked page showed the percentage completed and last check in of assigned work.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I kind of thought it'd be nice to have a shortcut to get to the assignment status of any given exponent, kind of like the /Mxxxx URL shortcut we setup for the detail of an exponent.

Right now it's "as easy as" going to a URL like:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=55079077"]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=55079077[/URL]

Maybe a shortcut like /A55079077 that redirects to that would be handy. :smile:

[QUOTE]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(57885161) once: 8

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 58M: 8 (Estimated completion : 2015-09-23)[/QUOTE]

Only [b][size=+3]8[/size][/b] to go!

While the top 2 of the 8 haven't checked in since mid-July, I would hope people will lay off from poaching any of these or working on them without being assigned to them. The existing assignments are actual cat 1 assignments, and should be completed or recycled soon enough.

I am curious that there always seems to be at least one exponent < 59M that remains unassigned. I would have to guess there is a single exponent that is in some sort of funny state that is preventing it from getting handed out. I don't know of any way to efficiently figure out which exponent that is from the public interfaces. I am wondering if anyone knows which exponent is unassigned, and why it remains unassigned.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;409122]I am curious that there always seems to be at least one exponent < 59M that remains unassigned. I would have to guess there is a single exponent that is in some sort of funny state that is preventing it from getting handed out. I don't know of any way to efficiently figure out which exponent that is from the public interfaces. I am wondering if anyone knows which exponent is unassigned, and why it remains unassigned.[/QUOTE]

I was curious about that too the other day, so I dug into it.

There's an exponent in the 58M range that, for some reason, is marked in the database as needing a double-check even though no first time check exists. I think it got tagged wrong for some old reason, like maybe a result did come in for it but was bogus or something, but meanwhile it never got set back to an exponent needing a first time check.

I'm waiting on George for confirmation or approval before setting it back to the "first time checks needed" category, just in case there was something else bizarre going on. I'm guessing just a weird data error. As soon as it's fixed it should get assigned out pretty quick. For now I didn't think there was any big hurry so there's no real rush to do anything before George weighs in. He does sometimes get results emailed to him and checks those in manually, and for all I know something like that happened and it just hasn't been entered in yet. :smile: